The sooner you give these old ideas up, the sooner we can begin having a stronger Army, and safe nation.

I expect some resistance to having a full-bodied Army, but after a couple survey's on how we can adapt the military, everything is going to work out. It will take sometime but eventually you all will get used to it.

They could always offer people the oppurtunity to voluntarily sperate if they can't work in this new reality.

LOL...It isn't so much my "old ideas". I don't agre with your "new world order". Obesity is the present epedemic of our society. The military reserves the right to discriminate on it standards. I don't make the policy or procedures. However, it is the duty of every member to ensure they are fit, within standards, and are battle ready. I'm sure a 5'9 300 lbs man can shoot well, fix things, and be a capable leader; However, he is a risk on the battle field, unsat in a uniform, and a health burden on the military (heart disease, type II diabetic, hypertension, and bone /joint).

See the beauty of our military is we don't care about "surveys". Popularity polls just don't cut it. Surely in the church you have seen what happens when man authors "confusion". Open hearts...open doors...open minds.....HERESY!!! I'll digress.

The military is no place for the sick, lame, or lazy.....especially phat bodies!!!

Comment

I, personnaly, could only think of one (Yes, I said ONE) way to permissibaly grant a waiver to someone who misses the top end of the H/W: A one day fitness challenge, just like in Air Assault School BUT here is the first - Start with a APFT where all participants must achieve 70% or better in each event to the 17-21 age group, and will be graded by seasoned Ranger School NCO's to standard; second an obstacle course that includes various tubes and cut-outs that mimic a hatch or door at various heights and climbs (lets say it mimics the Downy Mile in most cases), and finally a good old Infantry 12 mile ruck march carrying a minimum 30% of body wieght in ruck (not including water weight) in 3 hours or less.

If said person can do this and not get stuck in any of the obstacles and complete the whole day, then why not consider a waiver...

A fatter, bigger army.. never gonna happen chappy, I do not know what you have been sprinkling in your froot loops, but time to take a deep breath and relax and come up with a more realistic topic to create that devisive commentary you crave

This problem seems too easy to rectify to me. Please correct me if my logic is wrong here--If a soldier fails the tape measure and he/she has a commendable service record, then he/she should be given the option to undergo some kind of supervised fitness for a specified length of time. This should be the case particularly for soldiers that are in combat related MOS's. If there is improvement, then fine. But if he/she is still just a fat as he/she was when he/she first failed the tape test or opts out of supervised physical fitness, then it's time to go home.

Comment

This problem seems too easy to rectify to me. Please correct me if my logic is wrong here--If a soldier fails the tape measure and he/she has a commendable service record, then he/she should be given the option to undergo some kind of supervised fitness for a specified length of time. This should be the case particularly for soldiers that are in combat related MOS's. If there is improvement, then fine. But if he/she is still just a fat as he/she was when he/she first failed the tape test or opts out of supervised physical fitness, then it's time to go home.

This is how the system is supposed to work. If a soldier fails tape then they are put on a weight control program that includes time with the unit PT master trainer to set up a PT regiment and a chance to talk with the unit/battalion/brigade/state nutritional officer. Alot of slashes because there may only be 1 in a state. Every month that soldier is wieghed and taped and is flagged during this time. In 6 months if the soldier does not pass H/W they are then bared from re-enlistment and the program continues. If they fail a 3rd time then they can be chaptered out of the Army. However, the commander can give a 6 month extension and that is usually only granted if the soldier is showing continued improvement.

This is a good system in my opinion. If a soldier is actively working toward passing H/W and is showing improvement every month then I will recommend to the commander that that individual be given an extension if they don't pass at the end of that 6 months time frame. But if they are sitting on their arse and don't give a **** then I don't give a **** and I recommend that they GTFO. The same goes for the PT test. If a soldier can not pass the PT test but is showing improvement on each test then I will recommend they are given an extension.

This is how the system is supposed to work. If a soldier fails tape then they are put on a weight control program that includes time with the unit PT master trainer to set up a PT regiment and a chance to talk with the unit/battalion/brigade/state nutritional officer. Alot of slashes because there may only be 1 in a state. Every month that soldier is wieghed and taped and is flagged during this time. In 6 months if the soldier does not pass H/W they are then bared from re-enlistment and the program continues. If they fail a 3rd time then they can be chaptered out of the Army. However, the commander can give a 6 month extension and that is usually only granted if the soldier is showing continued improvement.

This is a good system in my opinion. If a soldier is actively working toward passing H/W and is showing improvement every month then I will recommend to the commander that that individual be given an extension if they don't pass at the end of that 6 months time frame. But if they are sitting on their arse and don't give a **** then I don't give a **** and I recommend that they GTFO. The same goes for the PT test. If a soldier can not pass the PT test but is showing improvement on each test then I will recommend they are given an extension.

Okay, then my logic serves me correctly--If the system works that way, then I have no sympathy for fat soldiers that are too lazy to make the grade. There have been "deployment issues" since the birth of the armed forces. Combat readiness is even more of an issue now than in the past--the reason escapes me why any branch of the armed forces should be more lenient on fat mofos when deployments are longer than ever and are in more inhospitable areas and in a time when suicides, desertion, and depression are sky-rocketing?? I'm sorry--are we a fighting force or a Good Will agency?

The prevailing factor in this case is, generally speaking, is you're a soldier first. Combat ready means combat ready. When you're deployed in a foreign land you can't clock out and go home or take a day off to seek counseling. Either you're in or out. Personally speaking, if I were deployed I wouldn't want to be a burden to myself and especially not my fellow soldier(s). If I'm a burden, then let me be a burden on my own time. Otherwise, unless I'm injured, I'm staying fit stress or no stress--end of story.

Comment

Standards exist for important reasons; uniformity in standards is vital to unit cohesion. While there is always room for common sense (ie, don't give the boot to a triathlete who can press a bus and spit 20mm rounds), I think the standard, whatever it is, has to be enforced. I've just recently begun my own battle-of-the-bulge and fully sympathize with those who've had to do it for most of their lives (up until 38, losing weight generally meant making a statement like "I need to drop 10 lbs", and then those 10 lbs being gone; since 38 all those easily dropped pounds are starting to find me. I think I must have been on a quantum-based diet.)
I know when I discharged in 93, I was asked at a Med Review board if I could carry someone my body weight for 100m over broken ground. I could not honestly say yes, and thus became a civilian. Bear in mind, I was an intel analyst at Ft Meade and the heaviest thing I had to carry was my coffee, but I was expected to meet the standard; every soldier is.

Comment

Sigh, same old arguments. If a person is fat, we must except them as they are. It's not a combat readiness issue. It's a human rights issue.

Well, you seem to be the only one who views it as a human rights issue. I wan't to be an astronaut but I don't fit the criteria or requirements. Should NASA make exceptions for me anyway and let me zoom into space? The obvious answer is no. Pilots have a vision requirement for a reason, and unlike the weight issue I can not control how horrible my eyes have become over the last 10 years. I don't see me not being a pilot or astronaut based on those fact as a human rights issue. Just a "well that *****" issue.

Standards exist for important reasons; uniformity in standards is vital to unit cohesion. While there is always room for common sense (ie, don't give the boot to a triathlete who can press a bus and spit 20mm rounds), I think the standard, whatever it is, has to be enforced. I've just recently begun my own battle-of-the-bulge and fully sympathize with those who've had to do it for most of their lives (up until 38, losing weight generally meant making a statement like "I need to drop 10 lbs", and then those 10 lbs being gone; since 38 all those easily dropped pounds are starting to find me. I think I must have been on a quantum-based diet.)
I know when I discharged in 93, I was asked at a Med Review board if I could carry someone my body weight for 100m over broken ground. I could not honestly say yes, and thus became a civilian. Bear in mind, I was an intel analyst at Ft Meade and the heaviest thing I had to carry was my coffee, but I was expected to meet the standard; every soldier is.

I feel you. I'm 38, working a full-time career, married with a 21-year-old daughter and two grandkids. It's definitely harder to lose and keep the weight off especially with all the distractions but I try to k i l l myself (not in a literal sense) everyday at the gym. I could easily give up but I'm not simply because the military has standards--period. I want to meet if not exceed those standards--period. If I couldn't meet those standards at MEPS, then I deserve to be disqualified. If I can't cut it while in the ARNG then kick me out. Whether a person is a new recruit or a veteran soldier they are aware of the standards that have to be met.

Like I said prior, a few survey's and commissions and this injustice can be resovled. Give it some time, fat will become the new standard.
You'll get used to it.

So, How lenient should the Army be on overweight people? And what criteria would you consider to be acceptable? 10-15 pounds over the standard? Sloppy fat? Pot belly? I'm not trying to be funny or disrespectful. I just want to get a clear picture.

Comment

I do have a personal bias against fat people, or at least fat soldiers. I'm no super fit hulk, but I lost weight to enlist and have since lost weight (and kept it off) to be a better soldier. Everything in life takes effort, and I know there are soldiers in my unit who are over the weight standard, do not pass tape, cannot pass an APFT, and do nothing about it. It honestly makes me mad when someone in my unit, my PLT even, makes the whole group look bad because they simply don't care about the standard.

Now, if the issues stem from an injury or some form of PTSD from deployment or whatever that is a little different, but once a deficiency is identified I know my unit doesn't let it just slip away. In my PLT we've gotten together, tried different workouts, gone out of our way to volunteer our time to help those that need it, but the bottom line is that they need to want it. I can't want success for anyone else.

Last edited by MPThink; February 9th, 2011, 03:43 PM.
Reason: Grammar is good!

Gents - let's not make this personal against one another. Let's talk about the subject at hand.

No job has the ramifications as that of being a soldier. I can't think of another vocation where the stakes are higher.

I don't have a bias against anyone. I do have an interest whether or not they can perform a series of tasks that won't get myself, themselves or others killed or wounded because they couldn't do something.

We had a range coming up. Went to the EST 2000 to snap in and get everyone a refresher on various weapons systems. One soldier hit TWO OUT OF FORTY!! Second try yielded 4 hits, third try resulted in 5 hits.

We went to the zero range. No hits on paper, no visible impacts in the berm. Alignment appeared to be good, as did his trigger control. We had no idea where he was hitting. Turns out, his eyesight is so horrible, he could not distinguish between the background, white or black. He had to be scratched from our mission because he couldn't shoot.

He's a great guy. Do we want him to go with us? You bet. Should he go? No. I'm not betting my life on his ability to hit a target.

Same goes for anyone, male or female, who cannot MEET THE STANDARDS that are required to go with a forward deployed unit. Or be in the military, for that matter.

This shouldn't only apply to infantry series soldiers. Today's warfare is asymetrical. Anyone, anywhere can find themselves in a firefight or under IDF attack, inside or outside the wire. You have to be in shape in order to run to another position, or climb into a tower when under fire.

The military shouldn't be a test-bed for civilian standards. A policy of everything being even and fair would fail miserably in the military.